Does Ishiguro dream of electric sheep? : androids as a distinctive emergent phenomenon in Japan

(1)

Does Ishiguro Dream of Electric Sheep?

Androids as a distinctive emergent phenomenon in Japan

by

Rita Livshits

BA, Haifa University, 2012

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of Pacific and Asian Studies

 Rita Livshits, 2016 University of Victoria

(2)

Supervisory Committee

Does Ishiguro Dream of Electric Sheep?

Androids as a distinctive emergent phenomenon in Japan

by

Rita Livshits

BA, Haifa University, 2012

Supervisory Committee

Dr. Cody M. Poulton (Department of Pacific and Asian Studies)

Supervisor

Dr. Leslie Butt (Department of Anthropology)

(3)

Abstract

Supervisory Committee

Dr. Cody M. Poulton (Department of Pacific and Asian Studies)

Supervisor

Dr. Leslie Butt (Department of Anthropology)

Outside Member

The Japanese robotics industry stands out in both its scale and its diversity of

innovations. No other country has put so much effort in research and development of

humanoid robots. This phenomenon has been widely discussed in academic scholarship,

and cultural, religious and socio-economic influences are widely cited as contributing

factors to the shaping of robotics in Japan. This work is focused on a specific and

relatively new product of this industry: the robot in human image, the android. The main

feature that separates androids from humanoid robots is external appearance, a design

aspect that has no operational function. This work attempt to offer a holistic theory for

the existence of an entire field of study dedicated to creating robots that look just like

(4)

Dedication

To Murphy,

(7)

Chapter 1- Introduction

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”

-God (allegedly), book of Genesis 1:26

Passengers arriving in Japan‘s Narita airport earlier this year were greeted and welcomed to the country by the instantly recognizable ASIMO, Honda‘s most famous robot1. The company offers some background information on the temporary attraction in

Narita airport:

ASIMO is a bipedal humanoid robot Honda has been developing with a goal to

develop robots that will coexist with and be useful to people.[…]The latest

version of ASIMO, introduced in November 2011, features not only high

physical capability that allows it to make not only various moves such as

running, going up and down stairs and kicking a ball, but also an ability to

recognize faces/voices of people and take action accordingly and autonomous

behaviour control such as avoiding obstacles depending on the situation of the

surroundings. (Honda Worldwide)

The Japanese robotics industry has been leading the world for decades. Japan has more

industrial robots than any other country, and the same is true for service and

entertainment robots as well. This earned Japan the nickname Robot Kingdom a few

decades ago, and it seems that the country will not be losing this title in the foreseeable

future.

1

(8)

Countless books and papers in many languages were written about the Japanese

robotics industry, how it came to be, and what makes it stand out. Almost all the research

done on this topic, going back a few decades, recounts the socio-economic, religious, and

cultural circumstances that helped create the Japanese robotics phenomenon. From early

industrial robots to humanoid robots, like ASIMO, the innovation in robotics research

and development in Japan keeps marching forward. The latest, and most radical, in the

line of advanced robotics are certainly androids.

Androids are humanoid robots with human-like appearance. Instead of a shiny

plastic or metal exterior, they have artificial skin, hair, noses, even eyelashes. On an

evolutionary chart of robots, androids would certainly be the newest addition, preceded

by humanoid robots. This generally leads to the perception that androids are the next

level of development after humanoid robots. It is very common to look at technological

progress in various fields in terms of ‗evolution‘. For instance, after the desktop computer was sufficiently functional, efforts began to create a compact and portable version. The

laptop was a clear ‗next step‘ in the evolution of the computer industry.

When applied to androids, this evolutionary analysis works only in a very narrow,

linear, sense. From a chronological standpoint, it is accurate that androids were

developed after humanoid robots. It is also true that android developers benefited from

existing technologies that were used to build humanoid robots. However, this was not a

conceptual evolution of an existing technology. Most technological advancements are at

least partially based on the question: how can we make it even better? The large

stationary computer was great, but a smaller, lighter one that is also portable, is better.

(9)

As fascinating as androids are, they are in no functional way ‗better‘ than humanoid robots. And yet, they exist. As will be discussed at some length in the fifth

chapter, building androids is a complicated and time consuming task. It is also very

expensive. The Japanese government is involved in funding these projects, thus making

androids harder to dismiss as a mere curiosity. The most interesting thing about androids

is that they exist, even though the one attribute that separates them from humanoid

robots, their external appearance, has absolutely no function.

If we take into account the years of research, the technological challenges, the

support of top universities, as well as government funding, androids cannot be deemed a

frivolous technology. Significant as well is the fact that Japan has very little competition

in the field of android research. As previously mentioned, the academic literature on

Japanese robotics is vast. As for androids, works from the past decade exploring the

unique factors that shaped the Japanese robotics industry mostly regard them as an

offshoot of the more established humanoid robots. These unique factors are undeniably

applicable to androids, and yet, do not fully explain them.

A question that remains unanswered in existing literature is: why build human

looking robots? If their design does not have any practical reasoning behind it, why do it,

and how did Japan become the centre of this phenomenon?

This project attempts to offer a holistic reading of the creation and development

of androids in Japan by employing a multidisciplinary approach. Insight from literary

studies, religious studies, engineering, sociology, anthropology, and media studies,

among others, are incorporated into what is hopefully a coherent perspective of the

(10)

conducted on the Japanese robotics industry, and the (until recently) uniquely Japanese

phenomenon of humanoid robots. Later chapters explore the motivations and views of the

leading android scientist, Dr. Hiroshi Ishiguro. His perspective is an essential factor in

understanding how androids stepped from fiction into reality.

Conceptually, this project approaches androids as an emergent phenomenon. This

very unique technology is created by, or emerges from, interactions and intersections of

many factors and influences. The following chapters of this work explore this network of

influences.

Our relationship with technology throughout history has been complicated. There

are many ways and methods to analyse its development and impact. Do we control it,

does it control us, or is it something in between? A very short story from more than half a

century ago illustrates this point. The plot of Answer, written in 1954 by Fredric Brown,

begins at a point in time, far in the future, when the final touches are being made to a

massive project ―that would connect, all at once, all of the monster computing machines

of all the populated planets in the universe--ninety-six billion planets--into the

supercircuit that would connect them all into the one supercalculator, one cybernetics

machine that would combine all the knowledge of all the galaxies.‖ Shortly after, as the

story goes, when the preparations were completed, the main switch was thrown, and

―there was a mighty hum, the surge of power from ninety-six billion planets.‖ The story ends after the first question is presented to the super-computer:

"It shall be a question that no single cybernetics machine has been able to

answer." He turned to face the machine. "Is there a God?" The mighty voice

(11)

there is a God." Sudden fear flashed on [his face]. He leaped to grab the switch.

A bolt of lightning from the cloudless sky struck him down and fused the

switch shut. (Brown 23)

This very short story is probably more relevant now that it was at the time it was

written. Advances and developments in Artificial Intelligence draw some criticism, and

occasional ominous warnings that if our human-built AI will become advanced enough,

we will lose control. Answer perfectly captures what detractors would call the potential

price of human curiosity, pursued at all costs. Although particularly fitting when

discussing AI, the story raises larger questions regarding technology, its ability to change

our societies, and our ability to steer its progress into beneficial avenues.

The second chapter broadly deals with these issues. It briefly reviews three

popular approaches to the social study of technology: the deterministic approach, social

construction, and actor network. The latter part of the chapter examines some of the

perceptions and fears often associated with advanced technologies. How we think about

technology, and how technology makes us feel, are important contextual considerations

for the following chapters.

ASIMO, the friendly humanoid robot mentioned above, has long been Honda‘s

best ambassador, and occasionally seems to represent Japan as well. One such instance

from 2003, as described on the company‘s website:

ASIMO visited the Czech Republic […] attending a dinner in Prague […] and

excellently fulfilling the role of goodwill ambassador of Robots. […] One of

the purposes of ASIMO visiting the Czech Republic was to assist in deepening

(12)

Prague and met the Czech Prime Minister Vladimir Spidla at dinner,

accompanying Japanese Premier Junichiro Koizumi as the 'Goodwill

Ambassador for Robots'. ASIMO greeted guests at the dinner in Czech, and

proposed a toast with a champagne glass in hand. There was a smile on

everyone's face and a round of applause broke out when ASIMO announced 'I

am still a child and therefore I cannot drink this'. (Honda Worldwide II)

No trip to Prague by a robot can be complete, of course, without a visit to the statue of

the man who came up with the work ‗robot‘, Karel Čapek, and pay his respects.

The third chapter explores both ASIMO and Čapek at some length. The first part of the chapter reviews the history of robotics, mainly in Japan: from centuries old

traditional crafts, through the invention or the word ‗robot‘, to modern times. The second

part of this chapter discusses various social, religious, cultural, and demographic factors

that contributed to Japan becoming the ‗Robot Kingdom‘. Before the discussion moves to androids in a later chapter, the history of robotics in Japan provides for a better

understanding of the environment and circumstances behind their creation.

The fourth chapter offers a more nuanced view of the religious, cultural and

spiritual landscape in Japan. The first part explores the concepts of nature, animism and

mimesis, and how they shaped an environment that contributes to the Japanese society‘s

views of technology. The second part of this chapter focuses on technological

interpretations of abstract concepts, such as technological animism and bio-memetics.

Franz Kafka‘s thought provoking work The Metamorphosis explores what happens when a man wakes up one morning and subsequently discovers that he was

(13)

alterations. Instead of waking up as a bug, the protagonist wakes up do discover that he is

now an android. This play, called La Metamorphose version Androide is another product

of the cooperation between Japan‘s most famous roboticist, and its most famous playwright (Tanaka).

The fifth chapter will further discuss the roboticist, the playwright, and the

intersection of theatre and engineering. At the centre of this chapter are androids, and the

man who builds them. It reviews the progression of this new category in robotics, in

Japan and to an extent around the world. This chapter also discusses what it takes to build

an android, what happens to them after they are completed, as well as future plans.

There is a substantial volume of work regarding the intersection of androids and

gender2. This project focuses on the emergence of androids, the history, cultural

environment and circumstances that provide insight into how they came to be. The

concerns raised by our new found ability to create artificial life-like women is most

certainly concerning and deserves ample attention and research. It is however beyond the

scope of this particular project, and therefore will not be addressed further.

2_{A good example would be: Robertson, Jennifer."Gendering Humanoid Robots: Robo-Sexism in Japan."}

(14)

Chapter 2- Technology, a Complex System

This chapter features a brief review of several topics that form the general

theoretical framework of this project. The main discussion in this chapter will focus on

how we perceive our relationship with the technology that surrounds us, the different

ways to analyse this relationship, and the nuanced consequences of each of these

analytical platforms. The first section is a wide angled review of a few prominent theories

in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS)3 and their conceptual evolutions.

The relationship between society and technology, no matter which approach is used to

analyse it, remains intertwined. The different approaches, however, lead to very different

ways of thinking about technology and the world in which it exists. From this stems their

importance. The second part of the chapter will focus more on how we feel about new

and advanced technologies and their role in our life.

The techno-social narrative

“We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us.”

-John M. Culkin, 19674

Technological Determinism

Technological determinism is an approach to analysing social change in a

techno-centric manner. Through this analytical lens technology is seen as the sole cause of social

3

Sometimes referred to as SST- Social Studies of Technology.

4_{The quote is frequently attributed to Marshall McLuhan. It appeared in a 1967 article in the Saturday Review}

(15)

change and as the ‗prime mover‘ in history (Chandler 1995)5. The deterministic

approach considers technology to be the root cause of fundamental changes in how

human societies organize, and a major influence on our collective psychology, and on the

way we look at the world (Chandler 1996). A very common example of this type of

thinking comes from the early days of the personal computer revolution. There were

common concerns that using computers for educational purposes will cause students to

lose their mathematical skills (Bauchspies, Croissant and Restivo 80). The loss of skill

was not attributed to behavioural changes due to shifting social norms concerning

mathematical skills, but, according to the deterministic view, it will be the computer that

causes it. On a grander scale, McLuhan suggests that ―the goose quill put an end to talk.

It abolished mystery; it gave architecture and towns; it brought roads and armies,

bureaucracy. It was the basic metaphor with which the cycle of civilization began the step

from the dark into the light of the mind. The hand that filled the parchment page built a

city.‖ (McLuhan and Fiore 48).

Technological progress has been a profoundly influential force in shaping social

structures since the dawn of humanity, and dates back to our first attempts at creating

simple tools from stone. Anthropologist Robert Ardrey wrote: ―when we took a stone and

chipped it into a pattern that would suit our needs, then we created something that does

not exist in nature. We were fashioning something to a design existing only in our minds.

The story of man has several critical turning points, and this is one of them.‖ (Ardrey 137-8). The significance tools and technologies have in shaping the way we understand

the world around us is evident when examining our most common method of classifying

5

(16)

historical periods and civilizations- the Stone Age, the Iron Age, the Steam Age, the

Computer Age (Wyatt 167), and more recently the Information Age.

The role of simple tools, and later very advanced technology at crucial milestones

of human evolution is an overarching theme in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is

most notable in the film‘s progression from portraying an early ancestor of Homo Sapiens realizing how to make useful tools, and shortly thereafter realizing that they can

be used as weapons, to perhaps the future product of humanity- a fully functioning

Artificial Intelligence (AI) ‗realizing‘ that it is not bound by the will of humans. Both

Arthur C. Clarke6 and Stanley Kubrick read Ardrey‘s work while writing the screenplay

for the movie, and his ideas about the evolutionary nature of the things we make are truly

echoed in this film (Clarke 1972 12, 28).

The scholarship on technological determinism is vast, and expectedly nuanced. At

its most extreme the argument often is that ―new technologies transform society at every

level, including institutions, social interaction and individuals. […] 'Human factors' and

social arrangements are seen as secondary.‖ (Chandler 1995)7

. No discussion about

extreme ideas of the technologically deterministic variety can be complete, or perhaps

even begin, without mentioning Jacques Ellul. Ellul argued that technology, and

especially the process behind its development ―elicits and conditions social, political, and economic change. It is the prime mover of all the rest, in spite of any appearance to the

contrary and in spite of human pride, which pretends that man‘s philosophical theories are still determining influences‖ (Ellul 133). A well-known example for this type of deterministic thinking about the power of technology is Marshall McLuhan‘s argument

6_{One of the world‘s most renowned Science Fiction writers} 7

(17)

that the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century is responsible for creating

individualism and nationalism (McLuhan 33). Printing, ‗a ditto device‘ as McLuhan puts

it, ―created the public. Electric technology created the mass.‖ (McLuhan and Fiore 49-50,

68). And as Neil Postman would add, the printing press created childhood, as well

(Postman 1994, xii).

Technological determinism views technology as an autonomous entity or force

that is external to humans and society (Bauchspies, Croissant and Restivo 75). In other

words, ―Rather than as a product of society and an integral part of it, technology is

presented as an independent, controlling, determining, generating,

self-propelling, self-perpetuating and self-expanding force. It is seen as out of human control,

changing under its own momentum and 'blindly' shaping society.‖ (Chandler 1995)8.

Regarding technological development as an autonomous process leads to the conclusion

that once started, this process cannot be stopped, and thus technological progress in

inevitable. Hasan Özbekhan, an expert on social systems, once wrote that in a

technology- dominated time, such as the one we live in, the concept of ‗can‘ transforms

in our perception into ‗ought‘, at least where technology is concerned (Ozbekhan 87). On this ‗if a gun appears in the first act, it must be fired by the third act‘9

approach, Chandler

elaborates: ―because a particular technology means that we can do something (it is

technically possible) then this action either ought to (as a moral imperative), must (as an

operational requirement) or inevitably will (in time) be taken.‖ (Chandler 1995)10.

8

Under Technological Autonomy, first paragraph.

9_{A slight variation on the dramatic principle known as Chekhov's gun.} 10

(18)

Ellul further argued that technology‖ has become autonomous; it has fashioned an

omnivorous world which obeys its own laws and which has renounced all tradition.‖

(Ellul 14). He continues, cementing his view that technology is an unstoppable force:

―[it] tolerates no judgment from without and accepts no limitation.‖ (Ellul 134). This autonomous existence attributed to technology by the deterministic approach extends also

to the process of creating new technologies. It assumes that new technologies are created

by engineers who are following ‗internal technical logic‘ only, and the social

environment has no influence on the process (Wyatt 168). Approaching technological

development as an autonomous process implies that technology is largely outside of

human control, and so are all the unforeseen side effects that come with every new

invention.

In his book The Disappearance of Childhood Neil Postman explores the influence

technology has on our lives, and on the way we interpret the world. He argues that every

machine represents an idea or a set of ideas, but they are not necessarily the same ideas

that the inventor had when the machine was created. He calls the inventors

‗Frankensteins‘, and defines ‗Frankenstein syndrome‘ as:‖ One creates a machine for a particular and limited purpose. But once the machine is built, we discover- sometimes to

our horror, usually to our discomfort, always to our surprise - that it has ideas of its own;

that it is quite capable not only of changing our habits but [...] of changing our habits of

mind.‖ (Postman 1994, 23).

Assuming that technology has ideas and a will of its own bestows an inanimate

object with self-consciousness and thus anthropomorphises it. Modern technologies have

(19)

use them and understand what it is they do, but they lack the knowledge to understand

how they in fact do it. Or, as Arthur C. Clarke put it- ―any sufficiently advanced

technology is indistinguishable from magic.‖ (Clarke 1973 21). This lack of

understanding of the interworking of intricate mechanisms is the root of technological

anthropomorphism, and leads to technology appearing to have and follow its own

‗purpose‘ while exceeding the limits of its technical function (Chandler 1995)11

. On this

analysis, Chandler adds: ―purposiveness arises in a device from the whole being greater

than the sum of the parts which were humanly designed: unplanned, a 'ghost in the

machine' emerges.‖ (Chandler 1995)12. The ‗ghost in the machine‘, a psychological

side-effect of advanced machineries, has been eliciting suspicion towards technology for a

very long time. It is only appropriate that these feelings of deep concern, and perhaps

even fear, about technology becoming self-conscious are represented by Dr.

Frankenstein‘s creation13 .

In a forward to Ellul‘s Technological Society sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote: ―Not understanding what the rule of technique is doing to him and to his world, modern man is bested by anxiety and a feeling of insecurity. He tries to adapt to changes he

cannot comprehend.‖ (Ellul vii). Grim as the notion might appear, at least it is not part of an evil master-plan. According to Merton and Ellul ―our technical civilization does not

result from a Machiavellian scheme. It is a response to the ‗laws of development‘ of technique.‖ (Ellul viii). A decade or so before Ellul was born, Emerson wrote: ―Things are in the saddle, and ride mankind‖ (Emerson 103).

11_{Under Technological Autonomy, tenth paragraph.} 12

Ibid.

13_{From Mary Shelly‘s book Frankenstein, first published in 1818, and considered to be the first science}

(20)

In Does Technology Drive History?14 historian of technology Merritt Roe Smith traces the ‗intellectual heritage‘ of technological determinism to the 18th century leaders of the Enlightenment. That era saw technology evoke optimism about a better future and

enthusiasm about its potential role as a great liberating force. It was then that the notion

of technology being an integral part of society, and not just a tool it uses, began to

formulate. When the industrial revolution began there was no turning back. Technology

had cemented its place in the collective social conciseness as a powerful and influential

force. Smith also notes that ―deterministic thinking took root when people began to

attribute agency to technology as a historical force.‖ (Smith 2).

During the 20th century, after being greeted as a liberator, and before becoming a

source of great concern and fear, the theoretical framework that gave agency over social

change to technology while taking it away from human society, became known as

‗technological determinism‘. Not surprisingly, technological determinism was widely criticized over the years. Critics argued that technology does not design and create itself,

and that ―there is no abstract and logical scientific method apart from the actions of scientist and engineers.‖, who, it should be mentioned, are parts of communities, and on a larger scale human society (Sismondo 10). Critics of deterministic thinking about

technological development also argue that for the most part, technology is neutral, it is

neither good nor bad in itself, and the consequences are determined by how we choose to

use it (Chandler 1995)15.

As mentioned above, deterministic analysis of technology does not follow one set

of rigid rules. The views of those who see deterministic elements in and around

14_{Full title- ―Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism‖.} 15

(21)

technological development create a deterministic spectrum of sorts, with varying degrees

of agency awarded to both technology and society. This short review offers a general

representation of the deterministic approach, and it is by no means a definitive

characterization of the entire field of study. The enduring criticism of technological

determinism, and its proponents‘ inclination to mainly focus on the social consequences of technology led to the development of a new approach to analyse the relationship

between technology and society (Williams and Edge 868).

Social Construction of Technology

‗Social construction‘ is a fundamentally different approach from determinism. It aims to demonstrate that technology is in fact a social creation, and not exclusively a

product of its own internal technical logic (Williams and Edge 866). Social Construction

of Technology, or SCOT, originated from the notions that both technology and science

are social endeavours, and that ―knowledge and artefacts are human products‖ (Sismondo

10). This approach became popular within the field of Science and Technology Studies

(STS) in the late 1970‘s (Sismondo 51). The goal of the social studies of technology was to show that technology was socially shaped, from the design process to the way it is

used (Wajcman 351). The fundamental assumption of SCOT is that science, knowledge

and technology are social and cultural constructions (Bauchspies, Croissant and Restivo

viii). This new approach strived to establish that technology does not develop in a

vacuum, but is created within a specific social environment that informs its eventual

characteristics. SCOT and other similar social approaches to the study of technology16

16_{Social Shaping of Technology (SST), Actor Network Theory (ANT), Socio-Technical Interaction Networks}

(22)

propose to completely rethink and reimagine the balance of power between technology

and society.

SCOT is a method of explaining how in fact technology ‗arises‘, how it is shaped

by society, and why a particular technology ‗wins‘ over other available alternatives (Winner 368). The process of designing a new technology is not straightforward, and can

end with a number of very different outcomes, depending on the social circumstances in

that time and place (Klein and Kleinman 29). A central aspect of the social approach to

technological development is the existence of choices. Whether conscious or unconscious

the design process is lined with ‗forking paths‘ that requires choices to be made, and

different choices naturally lead to different outcomes (Williams and Edge 866). These

choices help explain why certain technologies are rejected, despite being technically

sound. ‗Technical efficiency‘ and the ‗best technology‘ do not guarantee successful public acceptance (Wajcman 352). Wajcman maintains that ―there is nothing inevitable

about the ways technologies evolve. […] different groups of people involved with a

technology can have different understandings of that technology […]. Thus users can

radically alter the meanings and deployment of technologies.‖ (Wajcman 353).

A certain technology can be completely operational, widely accepted in one part

of the world, and rejected in another due to cultural irrelevance. This point is aptly

demonstrated by the rarity of organ transplantations in Japan. Although the Japanese

medical system is very advanced and science based, this particular technology and

methodology is largely not used. Social conventions about death in Japanese society

generally do not differentiate between various stages of death, such as the death of the

(23)

not dead. Thus, removing organs from a not dead individual is understandably

problematic (Bauchspies, Croissant and Restivo 81). In the West, where such social

conventions regarding death are not common, organ transplants pose less of a spiritual

issue. A notable expression, albeit for different reasons, would be some sects of

ultra-orthodox Judaism. Members of these communities refuse to donate organs based on the

belief that they will need them again when the messiah arrives and raises the dead.17

Social studies of technology coalesced around attempts to understand how and

why technology is created. Various approaches to the study of technological

development, whether historical, philosophical, or sociological ―are committed to examining the historical and social contexts and contingencies of scientific knowledge

and technology. In doing so they are explicitly rejecting a linear model of scientific and

technical change and with it any hint of social, technical or scientific determinism,

reductionism or autonomy.‖ (Cressman 3). Continuing within this tradition, a more inclusive and wide-scoped model for analysing technological innovation in a social

context was proposed.

A significant step forward in our understanding of social relationship with

technologies was taken when the enduring exclusion of non-human from the study of

social interaction was challenged. The exclusion of nonhumans (animals, memories,

objects, etc.) in the study of social interaction is usually based on a presumed lack of

conscious thought or intention. This approach echoes anthropologist Rane Willerslev‘s

argument, which will be discussed in a later chapter, regarding personhood in the West

17_{This notion is not supported by all the ultra-orthodox sects. It should also be noted that they have no}

(24)

being associated with humans only, while the definition of the animistic Yukaghirs in

Siberia is much wider and more inclusive.

One of the key figures who ideologically restricted participation in social

interaction was Weber: ―Weber‘s position specifically excludes animals, objects, and other nonhuman entities from engaging in social interaction. Interestingly, it excludes

many humans as well: reactive humans; habituating humans; fatigued, sleeping, or

comatose humans; and humans in the grips of euphoria.‖ (Cerulo 532). It was believes that intention is absolutely integral for one to be considered as a part of social interaction,

which does not apply to animals, as they are seen as acting according to their ‗genetic

programing‘. Talking to your pet, for instance, would not be considered social

interaction; it would be just like talking to your lamp. In the past 25 years these limits to

social interaction were challenged, and new, more inclusive theories were developed as

alternatives to previous ways of thinking about social interaction (Cerulo 532-3, 5).

Actor Network Theory

Redefining the social-

Rooted in French philosophy and semiotics, Actor Network Theory (ANT) was

developed in the 1980‘s by Michel Callon, Bruno Latur and John Law. It evolved from an existing tradition in the field of sociology of science to study the processes through

which scientific facts are created (Miettinen 171). Cerulo describes ANT as ―an

ambitious model designed to account for the essence of societies.‖ (Cerulo 533). This echoes Latour, one of the architects of this theory, who said that it ―aims at describing the

very nature of societies.‖ (Latour 369). According to this approach, the modern world,

(25)

who are humans and technological entities (Winner 366). Further, according to Latour ―it

is utterly impossible to understand what holds society together without reinjecting in its

fabric the facts manufactured by natural and social sciences and the artefacts designed by

engineers.‖ (Latour 370).

The basic model of ANT is created by actors, referred to as ‗actants‘, which are

independent entities, both human and nonhuman, who are able to affect change, or more

generally make things happen, without any intention or conscious thought being needed

on their part. The connections formed between these diverse actants results in an actor

network. Simply put, ANT is a model for studying the connections between different

types of actors within a network. These networks are forged by actants who can be

groups, organizations, things, and even concepts (Cerulo 534), and their identity is

defined through the various interactions they constantly have with other actants within

the network (Cressman 3).

Cressman offers another way to look at the analysis model proposed by ANT as

one that is ―arguing that everything – people, organizations, technologies, nature, politics,

social order(s) – are the result, or effect, of heterogeneous networks.‖ (Cressman 4). This

underlines ANT‘s most challenging concept- everything is ‗created‘ by heterogeneous networks, and networks are created by everything.

Latour explains that the sometimes confusing concept of ‗network‘ was chosen following its use by the philosopher Diderot, who used it ―to describe matter and bodies in order to avoid the Cartesian divide between matter and spirit.‖ (Latour 370). Due to the

ambiguity of its name18, actor networks are sometimes referred to as ‗heterogeneous

18

On misconceptions regarding ANT see: Latour, Bruno. "On actor-network theory: A few clarifications." Soziale Welt 47.4 (1996): 369-381.

(26)

networks‘, ‗collectives of humans and nonhumans‘, ‗hybrid collectives‘, ‗actant-rhizome

ontologies‘ and ‗sociotechnical networks‘ (Miettinen 173) (Cressman 2,4). This reflects ANT‘s key feature: a lack of division between humans and nonhumans when examining societies, a principle that will become very relevant in future chapters.

Cerulo argues that today‘s technology lead to ―nonhuman objects becom[ing] an active part of social interaction as opposed to mere props used by humans to enhance or

steer social interaction.‖ (Cerulo 539). Continuing this line of thought eventually leads to Latour‘s point of view that considers the relationship between modern society and

technology as being hybrid, as traditional distinctions and borders between object and

subject are disappearing (Tully 445). Wajcman explores further the influences of ANT on

the way we think:

since the widespread adoption of ‗actor-network theory‘ (ANT), technology and

society are no longer seen as separate spheres, influencing each other. Rather,

the metaphor of a ‗heterogeneous network‘ conveys the view that technology

and society are mutually constitutive: both are made of the same stuff –

networks linking human beings and non-human entities. The technological,

instead of being a sphere separate from society, is part of what makes

large-scale society possible. Their most controversial idea, that we cannot deny a

priori that nonhuman actors or ‗actants‘ can have agency, has helped us to

understand the role of technology in producing social life. (Wajcman 354)

The development of ANT can be compared to the evolution of physical thinking.

A modern era of conceptual thinking in physics was ushered in when physicists stopped

(27)

between various bodies. This led to a new understanding of the natural world- and

scientific advances that cemented our understanding about celestial mechanics, which

changed the way we think about space and time.

ANT was a radical idea in its early days, and perhaps for some it still is. Its ability

to reconceptualise the way we think about the mechanisms and building blocks of social

structures has earned it a reputation of being ―methodological provocations that

constantly challenge traditional categories in social sciences‖ (Miettinen 171).

The concept of a network of semiotic actors offers an interesting way to look at

the mechanism of change in societies. Nonhuman entities such as cellphones, robots, or

even collective memories, for instance, can all make powerful connections within the

network, and affect change. Latour‘s comment that ―ANT has some affinity with the order out of disorder or chaos philosophy‖ is particularly interesting. Chaos theory,

widely known as the butterfly effect, describes how minor changes can result in very

significant outcomes, in this case within a network. Although very hard to trace, minor

decisions or moments of inspiration can produce unimaginable outcomes, as will be

demonstrated in the next chapter.

This theory is applied in many fields of study, technology being the most relevant

to this project. Looking at the world today it seems counterintuitive to think that

technology is not a part of social interaction, and due to its lack of premeditated intention

does not affect major social changes.

ANT offers an interesting way to think about the world. The boundaries between

humans and technology are not as distinct as they once were- we ‗outsource‘ many

(28)

longer need to remember phone numbers, as we now rely on a cellphone to do that for us.

The internet takes care of a lot of our communication needs and acts as an external

information storage unit, eliminating our need to remember a wide range of things just by

making them instantly available. It seems that especially today, any model of social

interaction that excludes nonhumans cannot be very accurate.

ANT, by fully acknowledging the potential power of technology (in this case) to

affect social and cultural change, creates a very interesting comprehensive model for

analysing societies. Although ANT is not really a theory, as Latour points out multiple

times, and does not have a defined set of tools to analyse societies, it does offer a very

particular way of looking at a problem. A network that emerges from connections made

by people, things, and ideas creates a powerful analytical model for science and

technology studies, and many other disciplines19.

One of the best examples that clearly demonstrate how technology is socially

shaped, on the most fundamental level, comes from Japan. The cultural perspectives

regarding robots in japan are very different that those in the West. Cultural, religious and

historical factors shaped two very different approaches to robotics, leaving no doubt

about influence of local notions and social aspects on developing new technologies. This

is evident by the scale of the Japanese industry, the adoption rate of robotics in the

country, as well as the particular types of robots being developed. The history of robotics,

for the most part in Japan, as well as the social factors that shaped it, will be discussed in

the next chapter.

19_{Sociology, geography, management and organization studies, economics, anthropology and philosophy}

(29)

The ghost in the machine

“We must believe in free will— we have no choice.”

- Isaac Bashevis Singer.20

Technology has become ubiquitous. It is both a theoretical abstract and a practical

and mundane fact of daily life. Further, technology has become so integral that analysis

of its role in society has become a central part of social theory (Wajcman 347). We have

reached a point where many people, mainly in developed countries, experience a large

part of their daily life through various technological means. The constant presence of

technology in all aspects and during all hours of people‘s daily routines has become increasingly prevalent. This has not gone unnoticed. For a while now, backlash against

this trend has been gaining popularity. Public discussions are being had regarding the

potential harm of social technologies, for example, to our human relationships, social

skills, ability to deal with life‘s challenges, and even our sleep patterns. A good example

for calls to evaluate our current dependency on technology can be found in the writing

and public speeches of MIT professor Sherry Turkle.

Claus Tully notes that young people, born in these technological times, usually do

not associate risks with technological development. Rather, ―Technologies are seen as an

opportunity to conquer the world. They are equated with the future and with the power to

create it.‖ (Tully 448). Optimistic views of technology seem to reflect relatively calm periods in human history, when large populations do not live under constant terror of a

20

(30)

newly developed lethal technology, or recovering during the aftermath of such a

technology being used.

Optimistic views of technology were common from the days of ancient Greece to

the middle ages (Chandler 1994)21. Another such period, according to Isaac Asimov22,

lasted almost a century:

Between the year 1815, which saw the end of a series of general European wars,

and 1914, which saw the beginning of another, there was a brief period in which

humanity could afford the luxury of optimism concerning its relationship to the

machine. The Industrial Revolution seemed suddenly to uplift human power and

to bring on dreams of a technological Utopia on Earth in place of the mythic one

in Heaven. The good of machines seemed to far outbalance the evil and the

response of love far outbalance the response of fear.[…]Nevertheless, with

World War I, disillusionment set in. Science and technology, which promised an

Eden, turned out to be capable of delivering Hell as well. The beautiful airplane

that fulfilled the age-old dream of flight could deliver bombs. The chemical

techniques that produced anaesthetics, dyes, and medicines produced poison gas

as well. (Asimov 1981 161-2)

Indeed, views of technology shifted after the war, ―when the world had discovered the

negative side of the assembly line‖ (Schodt 1988 29). Kara Reilly further expands:

The First World War was the bloodiest war up to that point in history. It was a

war full of new technologies: tanks, grenades, mortar bombs, machine guns,

21

Under The pendulum of hopes and fears.

22_{One of the greatest science fiction authors of all time. Wrote extensively both fiction and non-fiction about}

(31)

poison mustard gas, and zeppelins. Battle photographs captured the visceral

images of the wounded and the dead, bringing them directly into people‘s homes via newspapers, also for the first time. Past wars had been visually recorded as

paintings, drawing, woodcuts, etchings, or even daguerreotypes, none of which

could capture the brutality of war with the same intensity as a photograph. All of

these new technologies made people suddenly aware of the very real possibility

of the destruction of the human race by its own machine-based creations.

(Reilly 149)

Technological optimism of the recent past gave way to what Reilly calls ‗anxious scepticism‘. She notes that ―This anxious scepticism was partially the result of machine

warfare, but also of the sincere fear that human beings would become slaves to the

machines they had created.‖ (Reilly 149).

This fear is at the heart of what Asimov identified as the ‗Frankenstein complex‘.

This complex refers to the wide spread fear generated notion that if created, a sentient

humanoid machine will necessarily turn against its creators. Asimov writes:

What is the fear? The simplest and most obvious fear is that of possible harm

that comes from machinery out of control. In fact, any technological advance,

however fundamental, has this double aspect of good/harm and, in response, is

viewed with a double aspect of love/fear. Fire warms you, gives you light, cooks

your food, smelts your ore - and, out of control, burns and kills. Your knives and

spears kill off your animal enemies and your human foes and, out of your

(32)

This fear, however, goes beyond this type of technological determinism, which posits that

if your creation can harm you, it probably will. Deeper currents of human psychology are

at play here, subconsciously signalling that nothing good can come out from creating

machines in our own image. Elsewhere, Asimov suggests that ―the creation of a robot, a

pseudo human being, by a human inventor is […] perceived as an imitation of the

creation of humanity by God[…] In societies where God is accepted as the sole creator,

as in the Judaeo-Christian west, any attempt to imitate him cannot help but be considered

as blasphemous.‖ (Asimov 1984 4-5).

The story of Dr. Frankenstein and his creation is often used in discussions of

potential harm that might come from an unrestrained pursuit of new technologies.

Published in 1818, the tale of a scientist that created life by applying electrical current to

a humanoid stitched together from dead body parts is widely considered to be the first

science fiction book in history. The science fiction genre of literature emerged after the

industrial revolution took place in early 19th century, in its place of origin- Great Britain

(Asimov 1981 18-9). The full name of Mary Shelley‘s masterpiece is appropriately

Frankenstein, or, the Modern Prometheus, as the myth of the Greek titan Prometheus is

echoed by Shelley‘s Dr. Frankenstein and his fate.

Prometheus, as the myth goes, created humans from clay and gave them life. Dr.

Frankenstein did the same, but with dead flesh instead of clay, and electricity instead of

divine powers. Ultimately, both the titan and the scientist were punished for their

perceived transgressions. The Frankenstein complex seems to describe pessimistic and

perhaps technophobic interpretations of Shelly‘s book. More than anything else, it now

(33)

of the story‘ was a cautionary tale about the devastation that comes from uninhibited scientific exploration, and humans overstepping their bounds.

Deterministic thinking about technology ultimately always poses the question:

can we create something that we will not be able to control? Asimov wrote:

From the start, then, the machine has faced mankind with a double aspect. As

long as it is completely under human control, it is useful and good and makes a

better life for people. However, it is the experience of mankind (and was already

his experience in quite early times) that technology is a cumulative thing, that

machines are invariably improved, and that the improvement is always in the

direction of etherealization, always in the direction of less human control and

more auto-control—and at an accelerating rate. As the human control decreases,

the machine becomes frightening in exact proportion. (Asimov 1981 155)

Asimov tried to actively combat the Frankenstein complex since 1939 by

portraying robots in his books and short stories as friends, servants and allies of humanity

(Asimov 1981 162). Additionally, to neutralize fears about robots developing free will

and a sense of purpose that might be in conflict with the interest of humanity, Asimov

came up with his famous Three Laws of Robotics, in a story named Runaround originally

published in 1942. The first law states that ―a robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.‖ The second law states that ―a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would

conflict with the First Law.‖ The third law states that ―a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.‖ (Asimov 1950 37).

(34)

These laws were meant to counter the Frankenstein complex by suggesting that

the machines that we build will always be inherently under our control, even if they are

autonomous for the most part. However, as Kaplan correctly points out, ―with his laws,

Asimov legitimized the Frankenstein syndrome yet further by viewing it as a fate that

humans must try to avoid.‖ (Kaplan 11).

Fear and rejection of technology, particularly in western societies, is probably as

old as technology itself. The Luddites, the Amish, ultra-orthodox Jews, among others,

shun and reject many or all technologies. In all cases, technology is believed to threaten

their way of life. It is feared because it is perceived as trying to force the modern world

on their communities, against their will.

For a discussion of a certain technology to be substantive, it should be

contextualized. Before analysing the origin and subsequent influence of a certain

technology, it is important to ascertain what role technology has in and on society, and

what, if any, its range of impact is. This project explores the circumstances that led, or

allowed for, the creation of androids. As reviewed in this chapter, approaches to the study

of technology changed over the years, and one might even say they evolved.

Deterministic thinking about technology, although no longer popular in academic

circles, is here to stay. We fear what we cannot understand, and we fear what we cannot

control. Social Construction offers a more organic analysis of how societies and

behaviours are affected by new technology, but more importantly, how technology is

created by, and reflects the society and culture of its origin. The Actor Network expands

this idea of symbiosis even further. The most relevant part of the theory is that it ‗invites‘

(35)

chapter, androids are built to interact with humans on various levels. This type of

interaction is different than one‘s interaction with a car, TV, or even a computer.

The non-discriminatory platform of ANT is a useful construct to keep in mind

while attempting to analyse the emergence of a particular technology that seems to defy

common sense, yet is completely historically predictable, all while being almost

(36)

Chapter 3- Robotics: A Mechanical Dream

The previous chapter presented a theoretical framework of the deep connection

between technology and society. This chapter will present a review of the field of

robotics around the world, its roots in ancient times, the genesis of robotics in Japan, and

the extent of the phenomenon today, while highlighting different approaches to the

subject on both sides of the ocean. Charting the development of robotics in Japan,

together with its impacts and social influences will be the foundation for exploring

Japan‘s attitude toward advanced technology, and androids in particular.

The history of robotics is quite unusual. It began in myth and legend, progressed

into fiction, and much later stepped into the real world. It is truly the history of

imagination manifesting into reality. As such, this brief account of robotics throughout

history will explore the early origins of today‘s modern machines.

From mythical origins to a fantastical reality

Life imitates art

The origin of the word ‗robot‘ is from the old Czech word ‗robota‘ (forced labour, serfdom). Its first public use was on January 25, 1921in Prague, in a theater performance

of the play R.U.R-Rossum’s Universal Robots written by Karel Čapek. This now popular

term was first suggested almost as an afterthought by Josef Čapek when his brother

(37)

he was about to write: ―call them robots‖, Josef answered, and we still do to this day.

(Horakova 242-3, 246).

The play describes a disastrous outcome of industrial automation. Humans built

machines to work on their behalf, but eventually the machines rebelled and eradicated all

of humanity. According to Reilly, RUR is in fact the first literary occurrence of humanity

being exterminated by its own technology (Reilly 149). The play is set sometime in the

future, 23and the plot revolves around the distant island where the R.U.R factory

manufactures its robots. The story spans a decade, and chronicles the eventual destruction

of the human race. A major factor in that final outcome is the demonstrated

―dehumanisation of humankind (man becomes machine-like), and humanisation of artificial beings (through increasing machines human-like abilities), and […] by

situations of confusion cased [sic] by inability to distinguish between man and machine

because of their similar behaviour‖ (Horakova and Kelemen 22). This happens due to

certain robots having a more advanced brain that causes them to develop consciousness

and emotions, and then revolt. Asimov notes that ―It was the theme of Frankenstein

expanded to a much larger scale‖ (Asimov and Frenkel 12).

Similar to Frankenstein‘s creation, made from organic material, and unlike the

more traditional idea of a metal robot that we know today, the robots in RUR were a

metaphor for the state of humanity in the awakening age of machines. In the play, after

the destruction of the human race, we learn that two of the robots are in love. RUR ends

with the sole surviving human saying to them: ―Go, Adam, go, Eve. The world is yours.‖

(Čapek 101).

23_{The poster for the Prague production states that the year is 2000, but this fact is not mentioned in the play}

(38)

RUR was a world-wide hit. It played 63 times in the theatre it premiered in, 184

times in New York and 126 times in London. It was translated into 30 languages, and

performed on stages around the world (Reilly 150-1). The play was not without

controversy, but it got positive reviews, as one critic wrote: ―as a dream, an impossible

fantasy […] it makes an impression of reality which we may be able to see perhaps

already tomorrow‖24 (Reilly 150). The play must have been deeply thought-provoking, as

another critic, in London, was profoundly influenced. He described his thoughts upon

leaving the theatre: ―As one comes out, poor soulless Robots seem still to be crowding round – in the street, the tube lift, the straphung train. Curious effect! Can it be true?‖25

(Reilly 152).

In a New York production an epilogue was added to the play. It showed two

robots, one male, one female, holding a baby in front of a postcard background of a

sunrise over a small cottage. Reilly notes that the intent was to convey that the love

between the two robots ―somehow convinced Nature of their right to reproduce, transforming them from Robots into humans.‖ (Reilly 170).

It seems that the New York production attempted to soften the harsh conclusion

of the play by suggesting that humanity will prevail. Nevertheless, the addition of the

epilogue confused a few critics, and even inspired a minor investigation. One critic wrote

to the theatre‘s executive director asking for clarification on the origins of the epilogue, and other potential departures from the original, and according to Reilly he was lied to in

response. He was assured that the epilogue appears in the original version, and that only

minor cuts were made. It appears, however, that the epilogue was not penned by Čapek,

24_{Dramatist Jaroslav Hilbert writing about the Prague production. Quoted in (Reilly).} 25

(39)

and furthermore, the final monologue from the original version was cut entirely from the

published translation (Reilly 171-2).

Further controversy surrounded the play when a British producer was asked to cut

out all biblical references from the end of the play before getting permission to go ahead

with the production. He was told that censorship-wise, the only problem was ―the reading

of the Bible passages on the last page of the play. That seems to me to go rather too

far.‖26

(Reilly 173).

The concern about potential blasphemy probably arose from the possible

suggestion that the person encouraging the robots at the end of the play to go forth and

become the new Adam and Eve might through this act appear as if he has become God.

To reassure all concerned that there was no measure of impiety, some praises were added

to God and his creation, and that was enough for the producer to receive his green light.

The controversy did not end there, and even George Bernard Shaw had an opinion on the

matter27. This too is a fascinating example of the problematic nature of any kind of

creation ‗in our image‘ within the context of western culture and Judaeo-Christian religion.

As in many other countries, the play became a hit in Japan as well. It was

performed in Tokyo on July 1924 under the title Artificial Human (Jinzō Ningen) at the

first theatre in Japan built to accommodate modern western drama, the Tsukiji Little

Theatre. Unlike most western audiences, who usually found Čapek‘s artificial people to

be disturbing, in Japan it was met with fascination. One viewer‘s impression was that

―the author‘s intent was to show people controlling the ultimate in science, yet not losing

26_{G.S. Street, a clerk at the Lord Chamberlain‘s office. Quoted in (Reilly).} 27

(40)

human love-that‘s where the future of humanity lies.‖28 (Hornyak 34). As for RUR‘s

blasphemous innuendoes debated in the West, the young man who was deeply inspired

by the play and a few years later, in 1928, built the first Japanese robot, wrote regarding

the play: ―If one considers humans as the children of nature, artificial humans created by the hand of man are thus nature‘s grandchildren.‖29 (Hornyak 38). The difference in

reactions between western audiences and ones in Japan demonstrate the notions discussed

in the previous chapter about different societies having different reactions to the same

technology, and very different ways of imagining what sort of future it might bring. As

for Asimov, he really did not like it: ―Čapek‘s play is, in my own opinion, a terribly bad

one, but it is immortal for that one word.‖ (Asimov 1981 71). The ancient world

The ancient ancestors of modern robots originated in antiquity. Ancient Greek

texts documented construction of automata, Greek for ‗self-operating machines‘, as early

as the Hellenistic period.Prior to that, as is usually the case with such things, various

automata appeared in myth and legend. Homer‘s Iliad has one of the earliest portrayals of

a humanoid automaton. In the eighteenth book of the Iliad, Hephaestus, god of the forge,

created golden women who could think, talk and perform various tasks: ―there moved

swiftly to support their lord handmaidens wrought of gold in the semblance of living

maids. In them is understanding in their hearts, and in them speech and strength, and they

know cunning handiwork by gift of the immortal gods. These busily moved to support

28_{Kihachi Kitamura, quoted in (Hornyak)} 29

(41)

their lord‖ (Homer 1925 319). Hephaestus also created Talos, a bronze statue, that became a sentry on the island of Crete (Nocks 5,6).

The term ‗automaton‘ (‗automatically‘, ‗automatic‘) first appeared in the written

version of the Iliad in the 8th century BCE (Vasileiadou, Kalligeropoulos and Karcanias

76). In the Fifth book Homer describes how Hera, Queen of Olympian gods, arrives at the

gates of heaven on her chariot of fire, and before her ―self-bidden groaned upon their

hinges the gates of heaven‖ (Homer 1924 249; emphasis added). And according to an

earlier translation: ―the gates of heaven bellowed as they flew open of their own accord‖

(Homer 1898 85; emphasis added). Both are translations of the Greek αυτόματον,

meaning automatically, by itself. Although lacking in mechanical details, Homer‘s

description of the gates indicates ―a vague technical intention, an imaginary technical

vision and paves the way for the later detailed descriptions of automatic machines that are

ascribed to the great craftsman of Olympus, Hephaestus.‖ (Vasileiadou, Kalligeropoulos and Karcanias 77).

Although undoubtedly impressive, Homer‘s imagined machines in the age before

such a thing existed should perhaps be inspected from a different perspective. In her book

The Mechanical Hypothesis in Ancient Greek Natural Philosophy, Sylvia Berryman

suggests that all of Homer‘s imagined inventions attributed to Hephaestus are in fact

animated by his divine powers. She argues that ―the act of animation is a distinct process

[...] For a god to animate a statue by breathing on it is no technique of human craft. This

story rather draws on the association of breath with life and on the view of the divine as

life-giving.‖ (Berryman 26). Hephaestus‘ creations are less mechanical miracles and

(42)

the Odyssey‘s automatic ships that require no crew or captain, Berryman arrives at the

conclusion that ―These stories should not be read as evidence, then, that the creators of this early literature imagined the building of ‗mechanical‘ automata. This is not only because there is positive evidence to suggest that divine animation is needed: it is a priori

unreasonable to expect mechanical conceptions before the development of mechanics.‖

(Berryman 27). Homer‘s original methodology for creating his imaginary devices,

whether divine or mechanical, can be debated; what is certain, however, are the

consequences. Homer‘s influence on humankind‘s collective imagination was integral to

creations of later centuries that were surely made without any help from the residents of

mount Olympus.

A manuscript named Mechanica30, the earliest surviving work on mechanics is believed to have been written by Aristotle in the 4th century BCE31. It contains

descriptions of many parts necessary for the construction of automatic machinery, among

them pulleys, levers, wheels, forceps and gears. The manuscript remains an essential

source for studying the mechanics of the ancient world (Berryman 55-8, 107-17, 46). The

automata built in Aristotle‘s time were mainly used for entertainment purposes, and were

commonly used on the theatre stages in Greece (Nocks 11-13).

The dream becomes reality

Automata, as Reilly notes, are hand-crafted, unique, and meant to entertain, while

robots are an entirely different matter; they are a work force, mass produced on a grand

30

Also referred to as ‗Mechanics‘ and ‗Mechanical Problems‘

31_{For more on the doubts surrounding the identity of the author of the manuscript, and the date of its creation}

(43)

scale (Reilly 150). And the scale is only getting grander. The genesis of robotics as we

know it today was in the 20th century. At first robots appeared only in science fiction

literature, but by mid-century they transitioned into the real world.A chance meeting that

took place in 1956 between George C. Devol, an inventor who held the patent for the first

programmable industrial robot, and Joseph F. Engelberger32, an engineer intrigued by the

possibilities of the patent, lead to the foundation of a company named Unimation, which

created Unimate, the world‘s first industrial robot (Schodt 1988 33-4).

The road toward building Unimate was convoluted, as was the task of describing

what Unimate actually was. Frederik Schodt notes that Engelberger was a fan of Isaac

Asimov, ―the science fiction writer who rails against the robot‘s ‗creaky gothic menace‘ image.‖, and so he was determined to call Unimate a robot from the very beginning (Schodt 1988 34-5). In a 1983 interview, Engelberger said: ―Over and over, the advice

was ‗don‘t call it a robot. Call it a programmable manipulator. Call it a production terminal or a universal transfer device‘. The word is robot and it should be robot. I was

building a robot, damn it, and I wasn‘t going to have any fun, in Asimov terms, unless it

was robot. So I stuck to my guns.‖33 (Asimov and Frenkel 25).

Unimate‘s debut was on a car assembly line in a General Motors plant in 1961, and the rest is the history of our times. Since Unimate‘s debut robots have made their

way to the depths of the ocean, into space, military uses, search and rescue, and various

other fields. The objective of modern robotics is to imitate, and perhaps improve human

capabilities, and perform tasks too dangerous for humans (Hockstein et al. 114).

32_{Nicknamed ‗father of the industrial robot‘ (Schodt 1988, 33)} 33

Does Ishiguro dream of electric sheep? : androids as a distinctive emergent phenomenon in Japan

Does Ishiguro Dream of Electric Sheep?

Androids as a distinctive emergent phenomenon in Japan

Supervisory Committee

Does Ishiguro Dream of Electric Sheep?

Androids as a distinctive emergent phenomenon in Japan

Abstract

Table of Contents

Dedication

Chapter 1- Introduction

Chapter 2- Technology, a Complex System

Chapter 3- Robotics: A Mechanical Dream